tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post6244663130862036922..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: An Atheistic Ethic: The Christian Debate StopperUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5054426553976573322007-12-13T13:43:00.000-05:002007-12-13T13:43:00.000-05:00Couple Points:First, it is much easier to tear dow...Couple Points:<BR/><BR/>First, it is much easier to tear down something then to build something and defend it. This is why negative campaign ads work so well. <BR/><BR/>Second, you cannot claim that a belief in nothing is something that you've built and are defending well. <BR/><BR/>Third, the world is a fallen place and no matter how hard you try, you will always do wrong. I'd like to see even one of you go for the rest of your life without hurting another person. This means in terms of killing, stealing, hurtful words, ect. Even if the result was the death penalty, this would not deter you.<BR/><BR/>Fourth, the best way to change a person is not to change the consequences, the best way to change a person is to expose yourselves to them in thought, deed, and action. Look at the civil rights movement. It wasn't the law and enforcement that made things better (heck, nobody really wanted to enforce the laws!), it was the exposing of ones self to conflict and much pain that caused a change in people's hearts.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Believe what you will, but don't sit here and pretend its "so easy" to figure out life's mysteries with or without religion! Want to impress me? Build up a belief system that has lasted for thousands of years through heavy fire.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58451630668327593972007-06-30T03:02:00.000-04:002007-06-30T03:02:00.000-04:00Hi Prup,right, I thought is was understood that a ...Hi Prup,<BR/>right, I thought is was understood that a 'penatent heart' was a requirement, didn't think I needed to mention it.<BR/><BR/>but this does raise two theological questions of 'salvation through works or grace' and 'once saved always saved' doesn't it? <BR/><BR/>all,<BR/>Peoples action and repentance goes beyond ethical behaviour, good and evil, right and wrong. Not only criminals have the urge to repeat an act they regret, so do overeaters, smokers, alcoholics, etc. and then you get into the psychology of the person. For example, they may be convinced they are sorry in principle but upon closer scrutiny they may just be sorry because they got caught and may not be able to tell the difference. I have run across this in people when I facilitated secular personal responsibility seminars. I realize overeaters don't present a clear and present danger to the community, but in terms of society and figuring in economics they do. Unhealthy people create a burden on the finite resources of the medical community. that is an indirect harm.<BR/><BR/>This question of Ethics is too complex to be contained in something like the bible because there are so many factors to consider. It doesn't even touch on the "Ethical" resons to lie such as my doctor example. It doesn't touch on babies that are born destined to die within a week. This would be an ethical reason to abort wouldn't it. <BR/><BR/>sorry got off on a tangent. But it does show doubt about god as the source of ethics.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7645496383037166762007-06-29T22:16:00.000-04:002007-06-29T22:16:00.000-04:00FYI Prup, my wife's daughter has a forensics degre...FYI Prup, my wife's daughter has a forensics degree and SHE says there is no such thing as a perfect murder.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58620897274148270122007-06-29T18:43:00.000-04:002007-06-29T18:43:00.000-04:00Early Christianity had its own disputes on this, w...<B>Early Christianity had its own disputes on this, with a belief -- remember, most people were converting as adults -- that faith 'washed away' your past sins, but if you sinned once you had been converted, that was it, and off to hell with you.</B><BR/>This would be incompatible with Jesus's admonition that we forgive our brother seventy times seven times. <BR/><BR/>Why would he expect us to forgive repeat offenders if He would not do so Himself?Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30069266932794811252007-06-28T20:58:00.000-04:002007-06-28T20:58:00.000-04:00Morbius:I don't know the Sam Harris quote you ment...Morbius:<BR/><BR/>I don't know the Sam Harris quote you mention, but if you quote him accurately, it is yet another reason why I do not consider him 'one of my heroes.' (My primary cause is that he seems to accept a 'mystical orientation' even while he attacks religion, and the orientation is the problem, more than the religion.) If this is an accurate quote, let me say that there is no circumstance I can imagine where I could agree with this. (I can imagine killing someone to keep him from acting on certain propositions -- which is why I consider WWII a just war -- but for belief, <B><I>NEVER</I></B>.<BR/><BR/>Logismous: glad to see one of the sensible Christians joining in, but I have to say that the idea that 'everyone is going to sin and thus deserves hell' is one of the worst ideas in Protestant Christianity -- as I've stated, it isn't in Catholicism, which sees heaven as the 'default position' and assumes someone has to work hard to get themselves condemned to hell. (Btw, where exactly in which Gospel do you find that statement?)<BR/><BR/>Actually, Lee, you <I>are</I> wrong by most interpretations of Christianity. Even modern Protestantism, I believe, with its belief in 'salvation through faith alone' still requires sincere repentance. God will not forgive you unless you accept that what you did was wrong and honestly determine not to repeat the sin. Yes, you may slip, but that honest determination to avoid the sin in the future is, I believe, a requirement in most theology -- and, of course, should be or the forgiveness would be the equivalent of a 'get out of jail free card.'<BR/><BR/>(Early Christianity had its own disputes on this, with a belief -- remember, most people were converting as adults -- that faith 'washed away' your <I>past</I> sins, but if you sinned once you had been converted, that was it, and off to hell with you. (One group, sorry, no time to check which one now, held that you could get one more chance after conversion, but 'two strikes and you were out.' Early Christianity wasn't big on recidivism.)<BR/><BR/>Let's break this here.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63831468193171459192007-06-28T20:40:00.000-04:002007-06-28T20:40:00.000-04:00Wow, there is so much to discuss here. Noxidereus...Wow, there is so much to discuss here. Noxidereus, you keep on making very good points. I love your point that since one life is all we have, we would be less likely to take the remainder of their life from someone else. (Of course, this implies empathy, one of the key motivating factors in ethical actions.)<BR/><BR/>Evan, you too are useful, if only to give us someone to argue against. I'm going to start with your comment at 7:19 June 25, because it is one of our favorite topics. <BR/><BR/>No, the atheistic system of ethics is not a question of 'popular belief,' nor is it any less 'manipulable' than the various supposedly religious-based ethical systems (see the way the Republican party has used 'Christianity' as a sanction for everything it has done recently, to the point where some people seem to believe that 'lower taxes' and 'no gun control' are in the Bible).<BR/>In fact, it is the history of all pre-Enlightenment Christianity after Nicea and Constantine -- even in the West -- that it was used by the authorities to sanction their own interpretations. True, sometimes you would, pre-Reformation, get struggles between the 'spiritual' and the 'temporal' realms, but usually the 'spiritual' gave way.<BR/><BR/>And once the Reformation occurred, the catch phrase was 'who holds the reign, his the religion' (sorry but I blipped the Latin).<BR/><BR/>It was only with the coming of the Enlightenment and finally of Democracy that this did not pertain.<BR/><BR/>In fact, if you read the posts I am putting up, and John's -- even though we disagree -- you'll find that we nowhere make 'popularity' a factor in ethical systems. (If you disagree and consider my 'developing ethical system' discussion to be saying this, reread it and you will see that I am saying precisely the opposite.)<BR/><BR/>If you consider that -- at any point -- I, or anyone here would be arguing 'If there are people who oppose the people in power, for religious beliefs, then it would be convenient to kill them. According to the atheistic ethic, it would be ethical to kill them because it would be also popular to kill them.' or the drivel that follows, you are either dumber than the nearest wall or deliberately misunderstanding what we are saying. (And you will see if I get Part II of "A Better..." out that this is specifically the opposite of my position. Since both 'communication' and 'respect' are among my highest values, I insist on the right of people to hold and act on opposing positions. In fact, maybe the most unethical act I can imagine would be to fail to speak out and oppose -- even at the cost of my own life -- any attempt such as that you suggest.<BR/><BR/>Enough for this, now to read down and see how others have handled this.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83586357499530453782007-06-28T15:17:00.000-04:002007-06-28T15:17:00.000-04:00Again, I'll get to the commenters later, but I wan...Again, I'll get to the commenters later, but I want to start with John's main post.<BR/><BR/>John:<BR/>Over 50 years ago, in the 1st Anniversary issue of SPORTS ILLUSTRATED, there was a very funny piece, a 'Communist explanation of baseball.' The writer was supposed to be a Soviet citizen who had come to America and was reporting on his first baseball game, and the hilarity was the way he saw everything through the warped lenses of Marxist doctirne. (I remember it, but not well enough to quote examples.)<BR/><BR/>It is less funny when people seriously take assumptions -- usually valid 'as far as they go' -- and turn them into an 'overarching theory' and try to fit their perceptions into the doctrine. Its common among believers, among polituical speakers, particularly on the extremes -- including the few Marxists that still exist -- and, of course, the whole basis of 'post-modernism' is doing precisely this. And John, I'm afraid you are falling so in love with your theory that you are doing much the same here.<BR/><BR/>It's true that 'people do kill people' whether they are Christians, non-believers, Muslims, Jains, whatever. (If this were the place, I'd argue that Christians are probably much more guilty than non-believers, and I have my own ideas why, but not now.) This is why every society requires laws and police powers, not just ethical teachings.<BR/><BR/>But your argument -- here I'm referring to your comment and not the main post -- that murder is inherently irrational because the odds of getting away with it are so low is simply nonsense -- or rather, special pleading at its worst.<BR/><BR/>Forensic science isn't <B>that</B> good at its best. Yes, DNA, fingerprints, and ballistics are pretty close to perfect when properly applied, but the other branches like hair and fiber analysis -- there was a NEW YORKER article on this recently -- are much less precise than TV shows us, and some branches, like handwriting analysis and forensic dentistry are extremely dubious.<BR/><BR/>But that's at its best, meaning the police have access to a high-level forensic lab, staffed by people who are, in real life, as assiduous as are Gil Grissom and his crew -- and these do exist, in some cities. But other labs are underfunded or are manned by sloppy employees, smaller cities don't always get the cooperation from big cities, rural areas may not have the access to any forensics, etc.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, the police have to be aware that a murder actually took place and to realize that i wasn't some sort of low-priority homicide. Even if they do figure out the killer, they may not be able to develop sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute the murderer -- many more murders are in fact 'solved' in police minds than are successfully 'cleared by conviction.' Ad of course there are possibilities for bribery or simply making sure the person investigating the case is an idiot by deciding where to do it.<BR/><BR/>And you were arguing that 'risk-taking' is a personal satisfaction that could be a factor in a person's 'rational self-interest,' so if the probability of getting caught is low but not as you put it:<BR/>"The odds against getting away with murder are close to zero. And even if you don't get caught the first time you'll probably kill again, and probably again. You will eventually get caught. It's not worth the risk." then this might not be a discouragement.<BR/><BR/>I'd argue that people don't kill, not just for fear of getting caught, but because they do recognize murder as being wrong.<BR/><BR/>In fact, one problem I am having with your whole series is that you are discussing 'ends.' But, in most cases -- not all, but the vast majority -- 'ends' are ethically neutral. It is the question of how you choose to accomplish those ends that creates the ethical questions.<BR/><BR/>(But oh, did the commenters get off into other topics. I may not get to you guys till late evening, but I can't wait.)Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16228442547858438552007-06-28T14:26:00.000-04:002007-06-28T14:26:00.000-04:00"And if He refuses to reveal His Law to you, you h..."And if He refuses to reveal His Law to you, you have no recourse."<BR/><BR/>Are we talking the same law already revealed to all in the bible, or some other secret law only revealed to those who are saved?<BR/><BR/>"Now, if God tells me the truth (in his Bible) that occasionally he is lying—how can I be certain as to what is a lie and what is truth?<BR/>You don't"<BR/><BR/>Now this is a little troubling<BR/><BR/>"Then is it fair for him to punish those that don't know the law?<BR/>Fairness is irrelevant to God. The only thing relevant to God is His absolute power over us.?"<BR/><BR/>Somehow you conjour up an image of Darth Sidious with hands raised screaming, "unlimited power"!!!<BR/>I don't see how God can't be fair. How can a being that loves all punish those who don't know his law? It doesn't fit. We should have the opportunity to know of the truth and then decide for ourselves if we want to follow it or not. This should be given to all, not just a select few and then to hell with the rest. This sounds a little more like someone else I know, (in my best church lady voice) could it be Satan? hmmm?Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7762513060171256632007-06-28T13:13:00.000-04:002007-06-28T13:13:00.000-04:00Then is it fair for him to punish those that don't...<B>Then is it fair for him to punish those that don't know the law?</B><BR/>Fairness is irrelevant to God. The only thing relevant to God is His absolute power over us.Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2570740639472709052007-06-28T13:11:00.000-04:002007-06-28T13:11:00.000-04:00Now, if God tells me the truth (in his Bible) that...<B><BR/>Now, if God tells me the truth (in his Bible) that occasionally he is lying—how can I be certain as to what is a lie and what is truth?</B><BR/>You <I> don't </I>.Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66271313971514075452007-06-28T13:10:00.000-04:002007-06-28T13:10:00.000-04:00The question arises—what obligation would God have...<B><BR/><BR/>The question arises—what obligation would God have to indicate the law to humanity? And if he did so—how would we know?</B><BR/>He is God; He has absolutely <I> no </I> obligations. <BR/><BR/>If you do not obey His Law, you go to Hell. And if He refuses to reveal His Law to you, you have no recourse.Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55338065912056168342007-06-28T10:24:00.000-04:002007-06-28T10:24:00.000-04:00brian; What are you basing that [The God of Chri...<B> brian; </B> <I> What are you basing that [The God of Christianity could know whether a person truly knew the law or not] on? </I><BR/><BR/>Actually…the Bible! Verses that state: “You (God) alone know the hearts of the sons of man.” 1 Kings 8:39 & 2 Chron. 6:30. Or Discussions as to God thwarting the deep inward thoughts of humans in Psalm 64<BR/><BR/>The fact that Jesus knew thoughts. Matt. 12:25. John 16:19. And that Jesus knew who would not believe him. John 6:64.<BR/><BR/>But you are quite correct—it is quite possible for a person to be a Christian and to hold that God does not know the thoughts of humans, and therefore would not be able to determine whether they knew the law or not.<BR/><BR/>Is that they type of God that you believe exists? One that does not know human thoughts? What else does your God not know?<BR/><BR/>(And perhaps a little charity? We discuss with a variety of Christians—some who hold to hell, some who do not. Some who are universalists, some who are not. I can point you to a number, such as lee randolph is referring to, who believe, based upon the verses I cite, that God <I>does</I> know the inward thoughts of humans. Who include this ability within their definition of an “all-knowing” God.<BR/><BR/>I am most certainly not trying to trick you, or create a straw-person God that you do not believe in, just to tear it down. In fact, your God that does not know our inward thoughts is far more interesting, in my opinion.)<BR/><BR/><B>More: </B> <I>God has revealed himself to us through His Word, and also through the natural world around us. </I><BR/><BR/>Ahh…but this is a problem. See, just like those verses I pointed out as indicating God knows inward thoughts, some say God has revealed that means he would be aware of our knowledge of the law, you apparently say differently. Same words, two VERY different results. <BR/><BR/>And while I understand your confidence that your interpretation is correct, they assure me equal confidence that your interpretation is INcorrect. Which person should I believe? Here is where the difficulty comes in.<BR/><BR/>Further, God, within the very same Bible, states that he will send a spirit of delusion so they will believe a lie. 2 Th. 2:9-11. There are other instances when scripture does attribute deception to God, via a secondary agent (1 Kg 22:23; Ezk 14:9).<BR/><BR/>Now, if God tells me the truth (in his Bible) that occasionally he is lying—how can I be certain as to what is a lie and what is truth?DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17536936978939824772007-06-28T09:26:00.000-04:002007-06-28T09:26:00.000-04:00Hi Brian,I was rushed and forgot to mention the fa...Hi Brian,<BR/>I was rushed and forgot to mention the fact that this principlism depends on 'new covenant' theology. The problem as I see it is that 'New Covenant" theology is not accpted by all christians and those that do argue among themselves whether moses law <A HREF="http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/" REL="nofollow">"can convict of sin in a saving way".</A>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61059609212174062612007-06-28T09:10:00.000-04:002007-06-28T09:10:00.000-04:00Hi Brian,when peter says we ought to obey gods law...Hi Brian,<BR/>when peter says we ought to obey gods law rather than men, and then you show me the result of people trying to figure out how to work ancient laws into everyday life by the "Principlism" approach, this seems contradictory.<BR/><BR/>What do you do with the laws that can't be modified using principlism such as some of the laws with the stoning or death penalty?<BR/><BR/>Deosn't it seem to be a better plan to have written the law with principlism in mind or to have provided some formal revisions?<BR/><BR/>As it stands, it seems there was quite a bit of lack of forsight on the part of the holy spirit inspiring men to write gods word.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66279936629840704682007-06-28T08:13:00.000-04:002007-06-28T08:13:00.000-04:00Romans 1:18-20: 18For the wrath of God is reveal...Romans 1:18-20: <BR/><BR/> 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;<BR/><BR/> 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.<BR/><BR/> 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:<BR/><BR/> 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.<BR/><BR/> 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...<BR/><BR/>This Passage is Paul explaining to the Roman church that nature itself is a testament to God, and because of this man cannot be ignorant of who God is. This of course does not explain what the law is, but who God is.<BR/><BR/>As far as ignorance of the law... very simply, it says that "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Everyone. Me, you, everyone who reads this. Is it worthy of Gods punishment, every one of our sins? Yes, but I think you know this line of reasoning already. Jesus died to take away the punishment our we deserve because of our sins.<BR/><BR/>As far as old testament law goes, thats a huge topic by itself, but I've found a nice summary (OK, its a bit long, but a good read for those who are interested. It is:<BR/><BR/>http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_law_hays.html<BR/><BR/>"If you say "render unto ceaser what is ceasars and render unto god what is gods" then does caesars law override gods law?"<BR/><BR/>Peter sums this up nicely with: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29 ). So in this context, if there is some contention between Caesar and God, then we must follow God's word. The beatitudes in Matthew speak of being persecuted, and sometimes this can be because of the law. In China, for example, many Christians are persecuted for practicing their faith, even though it is not legal to do so. There are many examples of this. This example doesn't prove my point right, but it does illustrate it.<BR/><BR/>I hope I have answered your questions accurately. If not, just ask again. I don't try to avoid any questions, but if I missed anything, let me know...<BR/><BR/>BrianBrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00126607537825110329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67192116064582835302007-06-28T03:52:00.000-04:002007-06-28T03:52:00.000-04:00HI Brian,If god is all knowing, he knows what we k...HI Brian,<BR/>If god is all knowing, he knows what we know and what we don't know, right? Then he knows if we are ignorant of the law, right? <BR/>Then is it fair for him to punish those that don't know the law? no. To what degree is it fair to punish those that do know the law? Which law do we use, old testament law or some kind of "New Covenant" in Jesus? Jesus evidently validated Old Testament Law, which means it should be followed, right?<BR/>If it should be followed, then there are a few laws in the old testament that would be illegal in this day and age.<BR/><BR/>So if God gave the law as scripture, and christians can't follow it because they are illegal in this day and age, are christians violating gods commands by not following them? If god should punish law breakers, then to what degree? Stoning to those that pick up sticks on sunday, or for a disobedient child or death for homosexual acts?<BR/><BR/>These sound unreasonable today, maybe not in those days, but there hasn't been any scripture that I know of that revises those laws, has there?<BR/><BR/>If you say "render unto ceaser what is ceasars and render unto god what is gods" then does caesars law override gods law? If yes then where does god fit in terms of ethics, morals and law if it can be so easily overturned by government?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32891431732129812112007-06-28T02:08:00.000-04:002007-06-28T02:08:00.000-04:00"However, a god such as that described by Christia..."However, a god such as that described by Christianity would not have such a limitation. It could know whether a person truly knew the law or not, and whether they were breaching the law. It could impose a rule of “Ignorance of the law IS an excuse” since it would not be restricted by our human limitations."<BR/><BR/>Now thats one really big speculation. What are you basing that on? Because it would be nice?<BR/><BR/>It sounds like the world according to a majority of readers is what they want it to be, some sort of relativistic, non-logical convenience.<BR/><BR/>"The question arises—what obligation would God have to indicate the law to humanity? And if he did so—how would we know?"<BR/><BR/>The Bible? Creation? Just because you may not like these answers doesn't make them any less valid.<BR/><BR/>God has revealed himself to us through His Word, and also through the natural world around us.<BR/><BR/>I see one thing consistently when reading many forums/discussions: When a comment comes up about faith, or trust, the reaction almost immediately is something about not thinking for yourself, being mentally crippled, needing a crutch, mindless followers, etc.. Its my opinion we give ourselves too much credit... Would you tell a 2 year old he's a fool for trusting or relying on his parents? "Grow up, boy! Learn to think for yourself!" Nope. Same thing with God.<BR/><BR/>OK, I'm done ranting for now... could be I'm preaching to the wrong choir with the last point, but its important, nevertheless, to see a relationship with God this way.<BR/><BR/>BrianBrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00126607537825110329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31618240683424488192007-06-27T16:54:00.000-04:002007-06-27T16:54:00.000-04:00evanalmighty: Also, not having knowledge of the l...<B>evanalmighty: </B> <I>Also, not having knowledge of the law is not an excuse.<BR/>Try telling a judge that you did not know the speed limit was only 35 when you were going 60. See where that gets you. </I><BR/><BR/>Er….Can I attempt to clear something up?<BR/><BR/>I often see “Ignorance of the Law is no excuse” being applied to God. Actually, that is a misunderstanding of the concept. Have you every thought why we say that?<BR/><BR/>Imagine, for a moment, that not knowing the law was a valid defense. That, in fact, if a person was going 60 mph in a 35 mph but did not know it, they would be found “Not Responsible.” What would happen? Why, each person would stand up and proclaim that they didn’t know the law! They would…dare I say?...lie. We would quickly be put in a situation where we either could not convict anyone OR be reduced to the ridiculous notion of first trying to prove they knew the law, and then prove they broke it.<BR/><BR/>The reason “Ignorance of the Law is no Excuse” has been declared, is that we have no way of determining if someone is lying about knowing the law or not. Human limitation. (And I would note, by the way, there <I>are</I> laws about posting speed limits, and by a governmental body failing to conform to those laws, a person is exonerated from the crime of speeding. We can’t make a section of street 35 mph, and presume everyone has read the law books. So there is more concern about ignorance of the law than you may think.)<BR/><BR/>However, a god such as that described by Christianity would not have such a limitation. It could know whether a person truly knew the law or not, and whether they were breaching the law. It could impose a rule of “Ignorance of the law IS an excuse” since it would not be restricted by our human limitations.<BR/><BR/>The question arises—what obligation would God have to indicate the law to humanity? And if he did so—how would we know?DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42346780926102892152007-06-27T16:38:00.000-04:002007-06-27T16:38:00.000-04:00***Lee, you had an opinion that God might be real....***Lee, you had an opinion that <BR/>God might be real. You never actually believed he was real. You are all liars if you say you ever did.<BR/>Your faith was tested and you were found lacking. ***<BR/><BR/>Wow. I take *major* exception to this statement. You don't know the first thing about me, evanalmighty, but you have already called me a liar. You see, I have been down a similar life path as Lee and many others on this board. I had faith as solid as a rock, for 20+ years in fact. But now that faith is wavering, on the verge of extinction. That doesn't mean it never existed. <BR/><BR/>What are you trying to accomplish through your comments here, EA? If you are trying to win any of us back to the Lord, damn. Try again. Your judgment of people you don't even know isn't going to get you very far.Slapdashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09175742547306567984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40350241573853980072007-06-27T13:28:00.000-04:002007-06-27T13:28:00.000-04:00"Elimination of the weak and defective, the first ..."Elimination of the weak and defective, the first principle of our philosphy! And we should help them to do it!"<BR/><BR/>(The AntiChrist, sec 2, by Nietzsche the Syphillitic Atheist)<BR/><BR/>Now THERE'S and atheist ethic for ya!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75225386533555181652007-06-27T09:01:00.000-04:002007-06-27T09:01:00.000-04:00Lee, you had an opinion that God might be real. Y...Lee, you had an opinion that God might be real. You never actually believed he was real. You are all liars if you say you ever did.<BR/>Your faith was tested and you were found lacking. <BR/><BR/>Judas walked and talked with Jesus. Remember that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65822321637893572382007-06-27T08:58:00.000-04:002007-06-27T08:58:00.000-04:00"My grandfather was real and god isn't."There you ..."My grandfather was real and god isn't."<BR/><BR/>There you have it folks. Lee never believed. He mistook an opinion of God for actual belief in God.<BR/><BR/>And Lee, you are the one who does not know what he is talking about. You only pretend to know, just like you did when you were a false teacher. You are a pretender.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1337417230646001262007-06-27T04:05:00.000-04:002007-06-27T04:05:00.000-04:00Hi Brian,this facet of our discussion is really of...Hi Brian,<BR/>this facet of our discussion is really off topic however I was toying with writing and article on how the concept of Salvation, baptism and being born again face a dilemma with the <A HREF="http://www.allaboutgod.com/once-saved-always-saved.htm" REL="nofollow">'once saved always saved'</A> concept with the 'deconverted'.<BR/>Please stay tuned.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17776451167961975912007-06-27T03:45:00.000-04:002007-06-27T03:45:00.000-04:00I think it would be helpful to better explain term...I think it would be helpful to better explain terms. I'm confused by this discussion, and I think its a bit symantical.<BR/><BR/>Belief - I believe in Hitler, in that I am confidant he existed.<BR/><BR/>If, Lee, you mean you were confidant that God existed, then sure, I buy that, sort of.<BR/><BR/>I think that salvation is a different issue. If you think you were saved before, and not anymore, than I completely agree with Evan. Impossible. If you are not saved now, then you never were. But, in a way, I cannot judge whether this is true or not. The Bible says "you can know them by there fruit", so a persons lifestyle can indicate a path (right path, wrong path), but no one but God can know whether someone will be in heaven, other than the people who have been saved.<BR/><BR/>So hopefully this helps the conversation.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00126607537825110329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48572900351858917742007-06-26T23:46:00.000-04:002007-06-26T23:46:00.000-04:00Hi Evanalmighty,the difference is that my grandfat...Hi Evanalmighty,<BR/>the difference is that my grandfather participated in a relationship and god didn't. My grandfather was real and god isn't. Simple. Your analogy fails because it doesn't fit.<BR/><BR/>judge not lest ye be judged. and all that. <BR/><BR/>Where I am concerned, listen to your peers, you don't and cannot possibly know what you are talking about.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.com